Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Girish Chandra Gupta vs M/O Water Resources on 26 April, 2016
1 OA No.1210/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A No.1210/2016
New Delhi this the 26th day of April, 2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Sullar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. K. N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Girish Chandra Gupta, Age 47 years
S/o Late Shri Bihari Lal Gupta
House No.1452, Sector-55,
Faridabad-121004
Joint General Manager. .. Applicant
(Argued by: Shri A.P. Dhamija, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Water Resources,
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation,
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi-1.
2. National Projects Construction
Corporation Limited.,
Through its CMD,
30-31, Raja House,
Nehru Place, New Delhi-19
(Registered Office). ..Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri R.D. Kaushik, for Respondent No.1
Shri Naresh Kaushik, for Respondent No.2)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice M.S. Sullar, Member (J) The contour of facts which needs necessary mention to decide the question of issuing interim direction in this Original Application (OA), is that consequent upon his attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 58 years (date of birth being 2.4.1958), the Manager (P&A) of National Projects 2 OA No.1210/2016 Construction Limited (NPCL) (A Government of India Enterprise) issued Office Order dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure-
1) requesting the concerned Zonal/Project Managers to issue clear 'no demand certifcate' or demand, if any through fax in favour of the applicant. The applicant has preferred the instant OA challenging the impugned order dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure-1), claiming the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash the order dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent no.2 being illegal, arbitrary mala fide and discriminatory.
(b) Issue direction restraining the respondents from relieving the applicant on 30.04.2016 as threatened by letter dated 14.08.2015 of respondent No.2 with direction to continue the applicant in service beyond 30.04.2016.
( c) Hold that in the light of the decision of the Board of Directors of the respondent No.2 Corporation dated 30.12.2013 in response to the letter dated 24.12.2013 of the MoWR, the applicant is entitled to continue till attaining the age of 60 years as per the recommendation of the Board of Directors in the meeting dated 30.12.2013 in subsequent letter dated 03.01.2014.
And/or
(d) Over and above in compliance of equality before law and equal protection of law, age of retirement be made 60 years in respect of the applicant too, on the same analogy as Ministry has granted to Board Level executives during past (sic) over three years.
And
(e) May pass other order or orders in the interest of justice in favour of the applicant in the present facts and circumstances of the case".
2. At the same time, he has claimed ex-parte interim stay of his retirement on 30.04.2016.
3. The respondents have refuted the prayer of interim stay of the applicant.
3 OA No.1210/2016
4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the applicant has, contended with some amount of vehemence that age of superannuation of the employee of respondent-organisation of both categories, i.e., board level and below board level posts, had been recommended to be raised from 58 years to 60 years by way of DPE OM No.18(6)/98-GM-GL-002 dated 19.05.1998 (Annexure-2) but respondents have now arbitrarily reduced the age of superannuation of the employees of below board level to 58 years against the policy of uniform retirement, hence the impugned order (Annexure-
1) is unjust. The argument is that as per the Annexure-2 recommendations of DPE, the applicant would retire on the age of 60 years and the impugned order (Annexure-1) retiring him at the age of 58 years is arbitrary and illegal.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents urged that similar issue is engaging attention of the Tribunal in OAs bearing No.4423/2014 (Rajbeer Singh Vs. U.O.I.) and 2/2015 (Madan Lal Vs. UOI) seeking similar relief, wherein the prayer of interim relief was rejected by this Tribunal. He has also pointed out that even in a similar case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. U.O.I. and Another in Writ Petition (Civil) 1206/2016, decided on 15.02.2016, has declined to interfere in such matter. The argument is that as on date, the retirement age of the applicant is 58 years and the 4 OA No.1210/2016 respondents have rightly passed impugned order (Annexure-
1) to retire him at the age of 58 years.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled for interim stay as prayed for.
7. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the DPE guidelines dated 19.05.1958 (Annexure-2) have recommended to raise the age of below board level employees of Central PSEs from 58 to 60 years but these recommendations were never implemented by the Respondents in the NPCL.
8. Not only that, the matter was reviewed by the Board of Directors of NPCL in 208th meeting held on 03.12.1999 (Annexure-5) wherein it was decided to reduce the retirement age of below board level employee including workmen from 60 years to 58 years and requested the Department of Public Enterprises/Government to provide Non-Plan Additional Budgetary Assistance of Rs.1.50 crores to meet the immediate liability for the said purpose.
9. As a consequence thereof, Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources has conveyed its decision to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Respondent- Corporation by way of letter dated 22.06.2001 (Annexure-9) that the age of superannuation of the employees of NPCC 5 OA No.1210/2016 Limited has been reduced from 60 years to 58 years with effect from 22.06.2001 with the approval of the competent authority. In pursuance thereof, the order dated 26.6.2001 (Annexure-10) was accordingly issued.
10. Meaning thereby, the retirement age of below board level employees as on date is 58 years and applicant cannot claim that he should be retired at the age of 60 years, as urged on his behalf.
11. Therefore, we are of the firm view that neither the prima facie case nor the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant warranting any interim stay on his retirement.
12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merit, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of hearing of the main OA, the prayer for interim relief seeking stay of retirement of the applicant is declined. Needless to mention that nothing observed hereinabove would reflect in any manner on the merits of the case as the same has been recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the matter of interim relief.
(K.N. SHRIVASTAVA) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh